Senator Craig spoke to Matt Lauer on NBC last night for an entire hour during prime time. Did you see it?

For the past six weeks, since the story broke, I felt there was little reason for me to write about Senator Craig, because most people seemed to be suspicious of his behavior, and didn’t believe his story. I don’t think you need eyes-for-lies to see through Senator Craig. And while I don’t think that has changed, I thought it might be helpful for people to see why I don’t believe him, now that he has spoken publicly.

Senator Craig is a smooth man who is good at debating, according to the Boise State University debate team, and I concur. They said Craig was “an excellent deflector” and “he was very calculated.” Another debater, named Judy, stated that “There were a lot of contradictions.”

But no one elaborated as to why. I see many, many, many red flags in Senator Craig’s behavior when he spoke to Matt Lauer, and I don’t quite know where to start. I could probably write a book on just his interview. With that, I will start with the bigger, more general hot spots that I see, and then I will talk a little about the interview.

Read more

1. Emotions: Throughout much of Lauer’s interview with Craig, you can see Craig smile when he is talking about very serious allegations. If you were wrongly accused of something you didn’t do, would you be smiling? I can be nearly certain that you would not. Rather, you would feel violated and angry. You would feel wrongly accused and persecuted for something you didn’t do. Senator Craig’s reactions are not consistent with his side of the story.

   When people are deceptive, however, they don’t feel normal, natural emotions—They don’t feel anger when they should. Furthermore, deceptive people often put on a front of smiles and niceness to help convince people that they are good as well as incapable of wrongdoing. Innocent people, when they are wrongly accused, could care less about any of this. For them, getting the truth out is paramount, and their true feelings of violation are not hidden. Their feelings may be tamed or subdued, but not hidden altogether and replaced with a smiling front.

2. Senator Craig mentions over and over again about how embarrassed he was about the whole incident. This is absolutely perplexing. If he didn’t do anything, why would he have feelings of embarrassment?

   If I wrongly accused you of stealing from someone, are you going to be embarrassed? Or are you going to feel mad? Again, his emotions and words are inconsistent with a man wrongly accused.

3. Furthermore, if you were wrongly accused of something you didn’t do, would you keep it a secret? Would you not tell a single soul? Or would you tell those closest to you, such as a spouse? The fact that Senator Craig didn’t tell a soul is inconsistent behavior with someone who is wrongly accused. When we feel violated and wronged, we need a release—we need to talk, to vent, to get it off our chest. And while some people may only tell those closest to them, they will tell someone. The fact that Senator Craig didn’t even tell his wife is a huge red flag!!

   When we are caught doing something we are embarrassed or ashamed of, we don’t want to discuss it—we want to hide it. We don’t want to tell one single person, because the embarrassment is overwhelming. We want it to go away, and we will do anything to make it go away. Clearly, you can see Senator Craig was willing to do whatever it took to sweep this under the rug and keep it there. He was even willing to plead guilty! This is very inconsistent behavior as well.

You can watch Senator Craig’s interview with Matt Lauer:

Larry Craig tells his bathroom story

1. Watch Senator Craig when Lauer asks him if he knew that particular bathroom was well known for anonymous sexual encounters between gay men. Craig says (time marker 0:55), “No, I had no reason to know that.” Notice his smirkish smile? Why is he smiling, or smirking as it may be? This emotion is inappropriate behavior for someone wrongly accused. Craig does this over and over and over throughout the majority of this interview. It’s a big red flag.
2. Lauer asks if anyone had ever signaled Craig when he used the bathroom in the past. Again, you will see Craig acting almost jovial. You see no hints of anger whatsoever—which is what he should be feeling—even if he were to subdue or attempt to mask it.

   Listen to Senator Craig’s response (time marker 1:27) “No. No, never happened to my knowledge, ever.” The words “to my knowledge” are interesting because they show someone who is not certain. Yet, oddly, he tacks on the word “ever”, as if he were certain. This is contradictory: You either know or you don’t know. “To the best of my knowledge” suggests hesitation. People who are dishonest often say these qualifiers like “not to my knowledge”, or “not that I recall”, or “not that I remember”.

3. Lauer goes on to state that six minutes after Craig walked into that bathroom, he was arrested. Lauer says (time marker 1:48), “Your career was in jeopardy. Your family life was in jeopardy.” Finally, I see a hint of anger come from Craig. Watch how he presses his lips together and licks them. Here he is concealing his anger, and it shows. This is the emotion we should have seen at key points when Craig talked about how he was wrongly accused, but we didn’t. When Craig talks, he puts on his smiley face again. This is very inconsistent behavior.
4. Lauer goes on to discuss the actual incident with Senator Craig. Craig claims that he said “No” to the guy in the stall next to him. Lauer rightly calls him out, asking, “Why would you say No if you don’t know what is going on? If someone disturbs you, and you don’t understand it, you usually quietly remove yourself. You don’t say “No” to the guy next to you in a stall if you can’t see him. You don’t provoke craziness—you ignore it.

Later on in the interview (which is not online at MSNBC but shown on last night’s show), when Craig is talking to the police, many more inconsistencies pop up. When the undercover police officer recounts the story and asks Craig specific things, suddenly Craig doesn’t know, can’t recall, doesn’t remember. Then he admits to the fact that his foot did go under the stall divider. I think most people realize this is not an easy task to do when normally using the toilet in a stall, yet Craig’s only explanation is that he is a “wide” guy.

While I could go on and on, I will stop at this point. I think most people see Senator Craig and have their doubts. Hopefully, I have given people some good food for thought. I do not trust Senator Craig, but I think that is very clear at this point.

You can watch more excerpts of the interview here:

Sen. Craig on bathroom scandal

Update:
I found this interesting video of Senator Craig back in the 1980s. At the end of the clip, watch how Senator Craig denies any involvement. Notice his anger here!

Transcript: Police Interview Larry Craig